G8 leaders come to an agreement on Syria

June 21 2013

Andrei Ilyashenko

special to RBTH

From left: Russian President Vladimir Putin, British Prime Minister David Cameron and US President Barack Obama attending a photo session of all the participants in the G8 summit. Source: RIA Novosti / Sergey Guneev

Russia has persuaded other powers to look for ways toward a peaceful settlement.

To start with, the U.S. announced it had proof of the use of chemical
weapons by Syrian government troops: they were used on a small scale last year.
Yet only today did the U.S. choose to declare it to be a crossing of the “red
line.”

Washington thus announced that it was beginning to supply arms to the
rebels, though nothing was said about the timeframe and the kinds of aid.

Since France and Britain had, by that time, brought about a
lifting of the EU embargo on arms supplies to Syria and recognized the chemical
attacks by government troops – coming as it did on the eve of the G8 Summit –
this U.S. move created the impression that Putin, who opposes toppling Assad by
force, would be totally isolated at the summit.

The attempts to intimidate Russia by means of international
isolation continued until the final declaration of the summit was released: The
media repeatedly reported leaked information to the effect that the declaration
on Syria would carry no Russian signature.

Yet the Russian position remained unchanged. Moscow
promptly dismissed the claims of chemical weapons use by the Syrian troops as
unproven and declared that military aid to the rebels was a step aimed at
disrupting the peace conference on Syria, which was initiated in May by Russia
and the United States.

Everything seemed to indicate that, at the plenary session,
the Russian president would find himself opposing the seven other summit
participants – things did not turn out quite that way, apparently.

Speaking to the press after the summit, Putin stressed that
he never once felt he was “one against all” on the Syrian issue.

“We had a
common discussion. Somebody agreed with somebody else, somebody argued – but it
was never the case that Russia was alone in upholding its approach to the solution
of the Syrian problem,” the Russian leader said.

Judging from the final declaration, that was true. First,
it says nothing about the fate of Assad; yet, throughout the conflict, the
opposition, “the friends of Syria” and the authors of the draft U.N. Security
Council Resolutions that were vetoed by Moscow and Beijing demanded his
resignation with one voice.

Second, the G8 leaders condemned human rights
violations by all the parties to the Syrian conflict. Third, the charge against
Damascus of using chemical weapons has, for all intents and purposes, been
withdrawn.

The leaders agreed “to condemn the use of chemical weapons by
anyone, and crucially to enable an unhindered U.N. investigation to establish
the facts,” David Cameron said. The ball is now in the U.N.’s court.

“We strongly endorse the
decision to hold as soon as possible the Geneva Conference on Syria, to
implement fully the Geneva Communiqué of June 30, 2012, which sets out a number
of key steps beginning with agreement on a transitional governing body with
full executive powers, formed by mutual consent,” the final document reads.

Given such language, it would be absurd to launch official
military assistance to the rebels.

The U.S. authorities are satisfied with the G8 decision to
continue seeking a political settlement to the conflict in Syria, the Western
media reported on June 18, citing a high-ranking source
within the U.S. administration.

“The content of the final communiqué fully meets the goals
the U.S. president pursued at the talks with the leaders of the other countries
– including Russian President Vladimir Putin,” the official told journalists.

Moscow is, of course, also happy with the results. The part
of the final communiqué of the G8 meeting concerning Syria lays a solid
foundation for continued diplomatic talks on a peaceful settlement in that country,
according to deputy foreign minister of the Russian Federation, Gennady
Gatilov, who spoke in an interview with ITAR-TASS.

Related:

Yet, in a broader sense, we are talking about the emergence
of a new political situation in the world, says Dmitry Suslov, deputy director
of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at the
National Research University Higher School of Economics.

“For the West to admit that Assad might win, or at least
take part in the negotiations, would mean the biggest political setback in
post-Cold War history. Because if, even hypothetically, Assad stays, that means
the West is no longer calling all the shots,” the political analyst believes.

In Suslov’s opinion, “Syria should either show the outlines
of a new multipolarity in which Russia would be an equal partner – as is
already happening over Syria – or else we will see consequences comparable to
those being observed in Libya. But that is just the inertia of
unipolarity.”